Skip to content
taking down a workflow for numeric/computational experiments
Branch: master
Clone or download
Fetching latest commit…
Cannot retrieve the latest commit at this time.
Type Name Latest commit message Commit time
Failed to load latest commit information.



Sweepable is a framework for taking down numerical/computational experiments efficiently and productively. Sweepable is designed to help implement a work flow that


  1. Prototype
    Using Pyzo (MATLAB-like) or Jupyter notebooks (Mathematica-like) seems very natural especially for users who started with MATLAB and/or Mathematica. If you don't know how things should behave, these tools allow you to create chunks that are run-able while keeping a persistent workspace to incrementally test code for each portion of the experiment. For control systems, it is common to generate different reference trajectories, simulate the main control system, then performance evaluation.
  2. Refine
    It is good to get in a habit to keep parameters to the top of (sections or cells of) code for each section. As much as possible, write the results of each data processing/experimental step to file rather than re-running. Get in the habit of seperating useful functions, Start moving "blocks" into different files that can be updated/swapped out. Including system parameters but even table column names, etc Make sure to save the seed if you use any random numbers so results are repeatable.
  3. Prosper!

Using Sweepable

Then they can be easily adapted to sweepable functions. Then get in the habit of breaking out each step in the simulation process (i.e., the same reference, run, evaluate or other appropriate "pipeline") --

How to handle functions that don't lend themselves well to sweepable? Code genned or otherwise generic?

Example user code

Generic API definition:

import sweepable

def func_name(arg1=arg1_defualt, ...):

Current target: Sweepable as a Framework

@sweepable(ref_t=np.array, ref_y)
def get_reference(ref_param1=0., ...):
    return t_ref, x_ref # allow tuple or dictionary?

def sim_system(reference=get_reference, sim_param1=0., sim_param2=0., ...):
    ref_t = reference.ref_t
    ref_y = reference.ref_y
    return (df,)

@sweepable(metric1=float, metric2=float, metric3=float)
def evaluate_sim(sim_result=sim_system):
    traj = sim_result.out_traj
    ref_y = sim_result.get_reference.ref_y
    return metrci1, metric2, metric3

Which would let you do things like make a plot

# Make a plot!
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
fig, axes = plt.subplots(...)
labels = []
for sim in[], **query):
    sim.out_traj.plot(ax=axes, subplots=True, color=...)
    labels.append('param2 = {.2f}'.format(sim.param2))


Or generate some tables

metadata =[],...)
df = metadata._to_df() # ???
df.groupby(sim_result__param3).agg({'mean', 'median', 'stdev'})

Eventually, it might be nice if the code could be less coupled, as in

import sweepable
import pandas as pd
import numpy as np

def get_reference(ref_param1=0., ...):
    return x_ref # allow tuple or dictionary?

def sim_system(ref_param1=0., ..., sim_param1=0., sim_param2=0., ...):
    ref = get_reference(ref_param1, ...)
    return df

@sweepable(metric1=float, metric2=float, metric3=float)
def evaluate_sim(ref_param1=0., ..., sim_param1=0., sim_param2=0., ...):
    traj = sim_system(ref_param1, ..., sim_param1, sim_param2, ...)
    ref = get_reference(ref_param1, ...)
    return metrci1, metric2, metric3

The depends_on would tell Sweepable that repeated arguments define a relationship between the functions.

Development notes

originally, I was thinking would be very nice to have object-dot-able tracking through foreign keys, but this only has to be accessible if you know you're using sweepable (aka, plotting swept results). The general runner functions that can be made sweepable don't need to know about this -- assume they're just standard callables.

But it might be nice if we could provide hooks for caching. And to stay dask compatible, for eventuality. caching for "get" calls should be as performant as building in sweep awareness from the beginning.

this should be thought of as a get_or_create function from an ORM. should this even handle query's? or should that be in a separate method then break out the "call_function" logic?

__call__ and get_or_run: try to broadcast to create rows of the DB

then you can directly access select, get, get_or_none, get_by_id, and filter of the pw.Model from the sweepable

references should be simulated once, then loaded (or call a sweepable reference generator) analysis could call a sweepable reference

Once a sweepable function, use ORM-like API to more easily analyze (build summary tables, make plots, etc)

Also, runners should generate new objects rather than persistent reference in module as much as possible. I think this will make it easier to convert to distributed computing. sweepable makes it easier to implement the practice of never running a simulation and then doing something with it in the same namespace.

all sweepable functions should assume they run 1-at-a-time. I think this makes the API easier, and I assume you wouldn't need this if it were ufuncable or something. I guess we could provide some kind of hooks for a batch-processable numerical experiment step, not sure. between caching and/or distributed computing, and most use-cases not being ammenable anyway, this should allow good performance and clean writing for the user.

make input_default a sweepable object so sweepable knows you know. you can avoid copying parameter names that way, but then probably can only call using queries? or the object returned by a get?

Could you make a sweepable aware objects wear the default is a partial query? You would have to be deferred somehow but it could be a requirements for this setting function, where a different function might require it subset of something in the compliment

Should I do any magic of stripping out either repeated argument names or double underscore argument tracing to just rely on the foreign key? This might be necessary to really do the double underscore routing for field queries for a non-sweepable-aware function. This would also allow reverse queries, to find all (then filter) sim results based on this reference sim.

it is conceivable that the same exact function could be used to in multiple pipelines of sweepable functions.

you could create a wrapper function for each "pipeline" so it would have its own table and "connections." To make this easier, it would be nice if we could help copy and modify a signature, to DRY up this use case.

we could also have a non-decorator call, like
func_name = sweepable(**output_fields)(func_name)

actually, would that just work?

is there a way to avoid copying the signature if it's exactly the same?? I guess this would be the negative to making it broken-out into functions is inherently repeating some persistent information. I guess we could make the evaluator aware of sweepable?

[ ] eventually, would also check that the code hasn't changed -- would need to track pip (for all dependency versions) and git (for current research project and all dependencies installed with -e). It would be really nice if it could check what files (or even classes/functions) have been changed and only enforce compatability for that. --- check that fieldnames __ tracking has a depends_on, these can have no default or None default --- actually, I want the original sweep- able functions to be totally agnostic to sweepable API. Adding a depends_on makes dot-able namespace routing do more "external" code like plotting. Especially with caching, (does that require somehow making these objects more persistent? or will they always be persistent enough?) it should be performant enough.

code changing checks would also have to have a table of sweepable metadata. then check that table in DB for sweepable matches current definition. possibly complicated for the file fields.

[ ] for non framework usage, need every function that might hit the database to validate

Management commands?

reset model (drop table, possibly remove filefield data) migrate - limited use case, update schema and possibly re-run outputfields? if doing git checking,

__call__ api

You can’t perform that action at this time.
You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session. You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.